Argument in journalismhttps://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com
Exploring reasons and conclusions in the news
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:21:33 +0000 en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://s0.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngArgument in journalismhttps://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com
The Keller-Greenwald exchange: What is there to question?https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-keller-greenwald-exchange-what-is-there-to-question/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-keller-greenwald-exchange-what-is-there-to-question/#respondWed, 20 Nov 2013 23:24:01 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=583“Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?” provokes large quantities of questions. One of mine is this:

Given the reasons why Keller prefers his style of news reporting to Greenwald’s, what, if anything, would he question about the conclusions drawn by Greenwald and the Guardian in their coverage of the Snowden documents? Why?

There are many commentaries available with more questions and analysis. Some that I read and enjoyed include:

]]>https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-keller-greenwald-exchange-what-is-there-to-question/feed/0dherreraOpportunities for critical thinking about data journalismhttps://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/opportunities-for-critical-thinking-about-data-journalism/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/opportunities-for-critical-thinking-about-data-journalism/#respondWed, 06 Nov 2013 00:52:51 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=577The 1988 compilation of essays Selected Issues in Logic and Communication included one by Ralph Johnson called “Poll-ution: Coping with Surveys and polls.”

Johnson wrote about critical thinking questions that help you decide whether to accept the conclusions in news coverage of polling data:

Polls are often reported and are increasingly significant in political life. We need to know how to assess reports of polls. Crucial information such as the nature of the sample and the precise question asked is often not reported. No matter how accurate sampling techniques are, a poll cannot provide valuable information if its question is misleading or loaded.*

* When I added Johnson’s essay to my bibliography manager, I included this quote in the “Abstract” field. But I did not mark a page number and no longer have access to the book. My search for this essay in Google Books returns the beginning of the quote, so I feel pretty safe in assuming it is Johnson’s, but there is a chance I am wrong.

This post is a response to “Blogging and public intellectuals,” a panel discussion featuring NYU’s Jay Rosen and The Atlantic’s Megan Garber. I considered asking these questions by email, but I’m placing them here instead, in the spirit of the event.

Dear Dr. Rosen and Ms. Garber,

I attended your panel at Bard College on Sunday and found it challenging in the best way. Thank you for volunteering your time for it.

Two sets of questions have stuck with me since then. If you ever have the time and interest to respond to them on your blogs or another outlet, I would enjoy reading it.

The questions:

Who are some of today’s public intellectuals you think are worth following? What do they do that you admire, and how can journalists apply those things to their work?

In your work as bloggers and public intellectuals, how do you decide what to read day-to-day? What intellectual habits are you striving to improve? Dr. Rosen, has your routine changed since you were featured in “What I Read” in 2010?

My finding is that the series was deeply flawed and should not have been aired as it was.

The series committed five sins that violate NPR’s code of standards and ethics. They were:

No proof for its main allegations of wrongdoing;

Unfair tone in communicating these unproven allegations;

Factual errors, shaky anecdotes and misleading use of data by quietly switching what was being measured;

Incomplete reporting and lack of critical context;

No response from the state on many key points.

I was convinced after the first couple of chapters that Schumacher-Matos was worth reading for those who are invested in the issue covered by the original report. I found his writing to be fair, cautious, and reflective.

]]>https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/recommended-investigative-storytelling-gone-awry/feed/0dherreraRecommended: ‘Drawing Conclusions From Data’https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/recommended-drawing-conclusions-from-data/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/recommended-drawing-conclusions-from-data/#respondFri, 30 Aug 2013 01:14:21 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=522Jonathan Stray’s post “Drawing Conclusions From Data” is a wonderful summary of key critical questions to ask when being presented with data as evidence in an argument.

This brings us back to the raw cultural difference of the value of “theory” or “model” (i.e. understanding the central tendency and abstraction of data) versus the “anecdote” or “outlier” that is so important to journalists feeling they’ve got a good story to tell. We may be just at the beginning of understanding the benefits and tradeoffs of the narrative-dominant frame versus the analytic-dominant frame, but it’s certain that the cultural dilemma of how news communication is approached underscores a central challenge in integrating computation and journalism.

]]>https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-argumentative-power-of-data-and-narrative-in-journalism/feed/0dherreraRecent research about argument and narrative: an aside for journalismhttps://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/recent-research-about-argument-and-narrative-an-aside-for-journalism/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/recent-research-about-argument-and-narrative-an-aside-for-journalism/#respondSat, 16 Feb 2013 19:12:51 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=511A recent article in Informal Logic is worth reading for those interested in argument and journalism because of its discussion of the relationship between narrative and argument.

We explore the relationship between argument and narrative with reference to parables. Parables are typically thought to convey a message. In examining a parable, we can ask what that message is, whether the story told provides reasons for the message, and whether those reasons are good reasons. In exploring these questions, we employ as an investigative technique the strategy of reconstructing parables as arguments. We then proceed to consider the cogency of those arguments.

It’s true, though, that journalists do not write parables. So the conclusions of “Logic and Parables” are not strictly applicable to journalism.

However, the paper works well as an introduction into research in argument and narrative (as it was for me). It provides an overview of key questions that studies of argument and informal logic put to narrative and a few useful-looking citations.

]]>https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/recent-research-about-argument-and-narrative-an-aside-for-journalism/feed/0dherreraScience journalism in context: What would the arguments look like?https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/science-journalism-in-context-what-would-the-arguments-look-like/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/science-journalism-in-context-what-would-the-arguments-look-like/#respondSat, 03 Nov 2012 07:01:18 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=508A study published recently in PLoS ONE concluded that science journalism fails to contextualize, over time, initial findings in medical studies. “Initial observations are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies,” the researchers write. But the subsequent studies receive less coverage than the initial findings. Whatever coverage subsequent studies do receive rarely references their relationship to the initial findings.

The relationship to argument in journalism here is of an “ought” question: “What ought journalists argue when they cover medical research?”

Further down the line, we can judge the quality of the argument, in the form of the contextualization offered as well. What support is offered for the claim that the study supports or refutes or questions research X?

]]>https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/science-journalism-in-context-what-would-the-arguments-look-like/feed/0dherreraClay Shirky on online journalism ethicshttps://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/clay-shirky-on-online-journalism-ethics/
https://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/clay-shirky-on-online-journalism-ethics/#respondSun, 21 Oct 2012 07:37:43 +0000http://argumentinjournalism.wordpress.com/?p=505Clay Shirky recently published an essay at Poynter about the challenge of fostering trust when ideas in the public sphere are no longer scarce.

A relevant excerpt:

The philosophy of news ethics — tell the truth to the degree that you can, fess up when you get it wrong — doesn’t change in the switch from analog to digital. What does change, enormously, is the individual and organizational adaptations required to tell the truth without relying on scarcity, and hewing to ethical norms without the ability to use force.

Instead of naming opinions lies, we are better served by good investigative reporting and opinion journalism that makes sound arguments and clarifies the stakes. A well-reasoned article that seeks to argue pro or contra can offer a depth of opinion and insight that far surpasses the gotcha journalism of fact checking. What is needed is not a demand for simple factual reporting, but a willingness to read and talk with people with whom one disagrees.

From “Fact Checking the Fact Checkers,” by “RB” at the Hannah Arendt Center. The argument that too strong a focus on “fact checking” leads to the belief that the world is simpler and cleaner than it is seems close to prima facie true. But why believing in a simpler world is attractive, and what kind of utility the belief brings, look like they’re deep in Arendt theory, particularly regarding a person’s need for some sort of coherence and stability. Where would one go to start learning more about Arendt’s thinking?